Chinese
转变啊。驳斥灰烬的说法，就是“一定是把握”这样的说法。因为那样，随之而行，即与业等词语相关联，以及，一定是把握所转变的，即不同的，从业等词语的意义上推断出疾病等词语是应该说的，就是词缀的所说之义。如果说，用阐明来否定，就说了。所谓“不结合它”，就像“用瓶子舀水”等等，如果仅仅是结合了“仅仅”这个词，那么也就能理解一定是把握了。即使没有它也能理解，如果认为那有什么意义呢？就说了，一定是把握的自性之义，无论哪个“仅仅”的语音不存在，也能理解的一定是把握，那怎么会是我的词义，是应该说的呢？那么怎么样呢？如果即使没有“仅仅”这个词，也能从瓶子等语音本身理解一定是把握，那么那时，从业和作者等不同地陈述的事物中，如何仅仅区分开来，理解为不相同呢？对于不同地陈述意义的事物，所陈述的就不能是不相同的。这是承认之后说的，说“这不是合理的”，就是“区分”这样的说法。为什么呢？说了“它的”。因为显示区分本身。哪个言语有结果，那就是那样说的。为了理解其他，通过这个彻底的结合，无疑仅仅是区分不相关等等，如果不是那样，说话者说那个没有结果，理解者也只会不理解。如果认为怎么会在某处看到呢？说了“看到”，就是“例如”这样的说法。陈述非常著名的言语的自性，就是“互相”，是词语的集合本身，但不同的音调是不存在的。在这里，不认为这种是词语的集合，然而，用言语来完成词语的繁琐自性，对于成就的词语，就说是言语，在这里，认为存在成就等等的词语本身是区分者，而不是词语的集合。
English
It is a transformation. The statement refuting the ashes is the statement "it must be grasped." Because it is so, it follows, that is, it is related to words such as karma, and the transformation that must be grasped, that is, the different ones, from the meaning of words such as karma, it is inferred that words such as disease are to be said, that is, the meaning of the suffix. If it is said that it is negated by clarification, it is said. The so-called "not combining it" is like "scooping water with a bottle," etc. If it is only combined with the word "only," then it can also be understood that it must be grasped. Even if it can be understood without it, if it is thought, what is the meaning of that? It is said that the nature of what must be grasped, no matter which "only" sound does not exist, the understanding that must be grasped, how can that be my word meaning, is it to be said? Then how? If even without the word "only," it can be understood from the sound of the bottle, etc., that it must be grasped, then at that time, from the things that are stated differently, such as karma and author, how can they be distinguished only and understood as not the same? For things that state different meanings, what is stated cannot be not the same. This is said after admitting it, saying "this is not reasonable," which is the statement "distinction." Why? It said "its." Because it shows the distinction itself. Which speech has a result, that is what is said. In order to understand others, through this thorough combination, undoubtedly only distinguishes the unrelated, etc. If it is not so, the speaker says that it has no result, and the understander will only not understand. If it is thought, how can it be seen somewhere? It said "see," which is the statement "for example." Stating the nature of very famous speech is "mutual," which is the collection of words themselves, but different tones do not exist. Here, this kind is not considered a collection of words, however, the tedious nature of words is completed by speech, for the words of accomplishment, it is said to be speech, here, it is considered that the words of existence accomplishment, etc., are the distinguisher, not the collection of words.
Chinese
是。所谓“彼等本身”即是词语本身。如果词语集合的自性或词语的自性之外，有称为“声”的东西，为何不将它纳入言语之中呢？“从彼”之意是，因为在彼等之外，并没有称为“声”的其他东西，所以此处词语本身是以言语的声音来表达的。如果言语能断定结果，那么它就不会变成所要指示的对象，因为所要指示的对象是与结果不同的。如果对此有所怀疑，那么“哪种言语”之意是，那本身就是结果本身。如果断定是能显示，但因为没有显示意义，那么那些追求意义的人如何认为能从声音中理解意义呢？回答说，意义就是断定本身。如果断定不是无事物，那么它怎么会是意义呢？因此说“断定也是”。断定是从不相似的种类中返回。如果认为不是通过理解来断定，因此说“因此”，因为断定不是其他。所谓“彼与”是指正在断定与无差别。所谓“断定本身”是指正在断定本身。所谓“是事物”是指总的。断定是无事物的自性，无事物的量由其他来理解，是由声音来投射的。将不相似的种类断定为无事物的量的境，那是由显示种类等的声音来投射的，这就是所要表达的意义。那就是断定。其他是通过陈述种类。其他是无事物。如果这与事物相关，那么，如果显示种类等事物，那么投射无事物就会变成不存在。如果即使没有关联也投射，那么一切都会被一切投射，所说的“即使没有关联”就是这个意思。如果问如何投射，回答说“如果”。“返回”是断定。“从具有返回”之意是，具有返回的正在断定与不同没有差别，即使没有差别。“以此”是指如果是它的自性，那么投射是合理的，但你们却说它的自性
English
Yes. What is called "those themselves" are the words themselves. If there is something called "sound" that is different from the nature of a collection of words or the nature of a word, why is it not included in speech? The meaning of "from them" is that since there is nothing else called "sound" other than them, here the word itself is expressed by the sound of speech. If speech can determine the result, then it will not become the object to be indicated, because the object to be indicated is different from the result. If there is doubt about this, then the meaning of "which speech" is that it itself is the result itself. If it is said that determination is what shows, but because the meaning is not shown, how do those who seek meaning think that meaning can be understood from sound? The answer is that meaning is the determination itself. If determination is not a non-entity, then how can it be meaning? Therefore it is said, "determination also." Determination is turning away from dissimilar kinds. If it is thought that determination is not by understanding, therefore it is said, "therefore," because determination is not other. What is called "it and" refers to what is being determined and is non-different. What is called "determination itself" refers to what is being determined itself. What is called "is a thing" refers to the general. Determination is the nature of non-entity, the measure of non-entity is understood by others, and is projected by sound. Determining dissimilar kinds as the object of the measure of non-entity, that is projected by the sound that shows kinds, etc., and that is the meaning to be expressed. That is determination. The other is through stating kinds. The other is non-entity. If this is related to things, then, if things such as kinds are shown, then projecting non-entity will become non-existent. If it projects even without relation, then everything will be projected by everything, and the saying "even without relation" means this. If asked how it projects, the answer is "if." "Returning" is determination. The meaning of "from having returning" is that what is being determined with returning is not different from different, even if it is not different. "By this" it means that if it is its nature, then projection is reasonable, but you say its nature